Indeed. The simple conclusion is that in science, no evidence for is not evidence against. So why, for example, do I not accept Hinduism? It's because I have taken the scientific test offered in Christian scripture (ask and ye shall receive) and found the results to be true.
Oh yes, of course. No evidence against alien abductions means that it is a credible story? No evidence that little green men live in the center of the earth means that it is a plausible hypothesis? No evidence against pixies, fairies, goblins, and all sorts of magical creatures means they actually may exist?
Geez, are you for real?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Oh yes, of course. No evidence against alien abductions means that it is a credible story? No evidence that little green men live in the center of the earth means that it is a plausible hypothesis? No evidence against pixies, fairies, goblins, and all sorts of magical creatures means they actually may exist?
Geez, are you for real?
Real and scientific. Did science not at one time accept things like the ether and an earth centered universe, etc.? A classic example is the city of Troy, which, after centuries of being relegated to 'myth', was discovered to be real.
Oh yes, of course. No evidence against alien abductions means that it is a credible story? No evidence that little green men live in the center of the earth means that it is a plausible hypothesis? No evidence against pixies, fairies, goblins, and all sorts of magical creatures means they actually may exist?
Geez, are you for real?
Real and scientific. Did science not at one time accept things like the ether and an earth centered universe, etc.? A classic example is the city of Troy, which, after centuries of being relegated to 'myth', was discovered to be real.
I don't think you understand the term you're using. Myth doesn't necessarily mean "false" -- it can have historical accuracy. Yet, when we look to all cultures (at all times) to see creation stories they are labeled as "myths" -- creation mythology. Do you want to pull your choice out of there as being referred to as a "myth"? Why is it any different than all the other cultures?
Should I believe in Jesus since there really is a Jerusalem? If I do that then you can believe in Eros, Nyx and Gaia since Troy is a historical place.
I don't think you understand the term you're using.
I think I do. Note the sense I referred to.
Myth doesn't necessarily mean "false" -- it can have historical accuracy.
Indeed.
Yet, when we look to all cultures (at all times) to see creation stories they are labeled as "myths" -- creation mythology. Do you want to pull your choice out of there as being referred to as a "myth"? Why is it any different than all the other cultures?
Should I believe in Jesus since there really is a Jerusalem? If I do that then you can believe in Eros, Nyx and Gaia since Troy is a historical place.
No. You should believe because of the aforementioned test(s).
Oh yes, of course. No evidence against alien abductions means that it is a credible story? No evidence that little green men live in the center of the earth means that it is a plausible hypothesis? No evidence against pixies, fairies, goblins, and all sorts of magical creatures means they actually may exist?
Geez, are you for real?
Real and scientific. Did science not at one time accept things like the ether and an earth centered universe, etc.? A classic example is the city of Troy, which, after centuries of being relegated to 'myth', was discovered to be real.
Unreal and unscientific. You evince little understanding of actual science and the scientific method.
I'd love to see you try to make these arguments to an expert audience. THAT would be quite a show.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
I don't think you understand the term you're using.
I think I do. Note the sense I referred to.
Myth doesn't necessarily mean "false" -- it can have historical accuracy.
Indeed.
Yet, when we look to all cultures (at all times) to see creation stories they are labeled as "myths" -- creation mythology. Do you want to pull your choice out of there as being referred to as a "myth"? Why is it any different than all the other cultures?
Should I believe in Jesus since there really is a Jerusalem? If I do that then you can believe in Eros, Nyx and Gaia since Troy is a historical place.
No. You should believe because of the aforementioned test(s).
What aforementioned test? What precisely are you talking about? There is a scientific test in Christian scripture?
Why do you attempt to defend something with science that is based on faith?
Here is an example of something that is quite the opposite of a scientific test:
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Notice that the test is radically subjective and private, excludes epistemic peers merely on the basis of them not having faith in the very thing in question, includes no checks for self delusion and has no statisitical standards and no means of quantification.
In fact, this is nothing less than a recipe for self delusion and misattribution and misidentification of common subjective spiritual feelings that can occur at any time.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Notice that the test is radically subjective and private, excludes epistemic peers merely on the basis of them not having faith in the very thing in question, includes no checks for self delusion and has no statisitical standards and no means of quantification.
In fact, this is nothing less than a recipe for self delusion and misattribution and misidentification of common subjective spiritual feelings that can occur at any time
On the contrary, it's a test that can be performed by everyone. Statistics can be applied as well as quantification.